i hope bush rots in hell

[4dmin]

For 60 years we were happy to stay below 8% unemployment, but 96-2000 spoiled us with the tech market/dotcom bubble into havin unrealistic expectations. In fact, by 98 and 99 those who were in the industry knew that it was going to burst, that the rate was unmaintainable, and started getting out. Then it finally did bust and we went back to what is considered a maintainble unemployment rate. It is not unbearable, it is not inconceivable, it is exactly right where we should be. I highly doubt we'll ever see an unemployment rate as low as it was at the end of the 90s, and if we do it will only be because of another bubble and wishful thinking.

from 97-2001 we kept a consistant below 5% unemployement rate, everything after 911/war lead us up to higher unemployment... the % grew to 6.3% 1/2 way through 2003 then it started to drop and here we are today 2 years later at 5.1%. as far as your 8% figure we haven't seen 8% or higher since the early 80's, 5% or lower is alittle more accurate as a maintable rate. by the way they don't even have 60 years of data on bls.gov site

[4dmin]

\/ 1948+ unemployement %

[Desdicado]

I pulled my numbers off of here. Which ends at the 80s. I got the numbers for back to 1920 from here and here

*shrug*

Google is your friend

[4dmin]

I pulled my numbers off of here. Which ends at the 80s. I got the numbers for back to 1920 from here and here

*shrug*

Google is your friend

ya i guess you missed this part

"
NOTES: Estimates prior to 1940 are based on sources other than direct enumeration. Data prior to 1948 are for persons age 14 and over. Data beginning in 1948 are for persons age 16 and over.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Web: stats.bls.gov ."

^ yet the gov site doesn't go past 48' next time search the actual source instead of google

[Jaimecbr900]

Paul, it is true that a 1% shift in the unemployment numbers makes an impact, but also note that looking at the chart you posted....it's happened a bunch of times and by far more than just 1% too. Notice that there is a small pattern to those numbers you posted. It looks to me like around every decade the numbers start to look similar to each other. 2005's numbers look a little like 1995's and so on. That to me shows far more like there are other factors that govern these numbers.